JUDGE BRAND: Referring once more to common law language, as I recollect it, in Exhibit 49, was it not arguable that a statement there, which was made by a German official was in the nature of a res justae. I do not remember the exact details of that statement but it was an official statement, was it not? Was it not in the course of official business?
MR. KING: No, it was not, your Honor. It was a letter which was written pursuant to a request by an Army captain, and the request was to the effect that Schneller, a minister or director gave him a list of persons who were dismissed from the Ministry of Justice for certain reasons. And, Schneller, then, in response to that request set down, as he best could recollect it, the names of individuals who were dismissed for the reasons given. I do not think the res justae was present in that document.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me, that which has been suggested by my colleague -- I think I am somewhat familiar with the post litem motam and anti post litem motem, and I am not aware that they have been applied to any situation with the exception of self-serving declarations. However, I do not have any law books here, and I may be wrong. The thing that troubles me is this, I venture to recall what happened, and I do not recall very clearly as to the reasons for the ruling in document No. 560, but I am wondering if it is possible that the ruling was based upon the fact that the witness was not available. It has been suggested he was a prisoner of war at the time he made it.
MR. KING: He was a prisoner of war at the time, your Honor. I do not believe the question of the witness's availability was discussed at that time. In fact I do not think we knew where he was at the time that document was introduced, and whether he was readily available.
THE PRESIDENT: In this instance I do have the impression that this man Roemer is available -- right close here, well, in Munich.
MR. KING: It is true, your Honor that Roemer may be in Munich, but we do not know for sure any more about the man Roemer than we know about Schneller.
For all we know Schneller is also available.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course in American jurisprudence we always like to be careful not to admit evidence which forecloses cross examination, and we would like to adhere pretty closely to that rule if we can. If the witness is at all available, I strongly feel we should adhere to the ruling.
Will you give us the page of the transcript where that discussion took place, relating to document 560?
MR. KING: Yes, that begins on page 295 and for the following four or five pages.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in any event, there should be an examination of what was said at that time, bearing upon the ruling which we made at that time.
I also think we might benefit in hearing what Dr. Grube has to say on the issue, because we will not rule on it at this time.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, in regard to the document NG-720, I would like you to consider the following: The signature Roemer is not written by hand, but it is written on a typewriter; thus, there is no proof that the document actually originated with Roemer. It could also have been submitted by an unknown source.
In regard to the decision of the Tribunal in regard to NG-560, I would like to make the following remarks: At that time, the Court admitted the document. At that time I put the question as to whether the Defense could gather from the decision of the Tribunal according to whether the document was admitted, even though it was not a captured document and not an affidavit, whether the Defense could, therefore, conclude that the Defense Counsel also could submit simple letters as documents. At that time the Tribunal decided that this possibility had to be examined in each individual case. If from the present case, the conclusion is to be drawn, and the Prosecution should be given the right to submit simple letters as documents, then I ask the Tribunal simoultan eously to make a decision also in regard to the Defense, and I ask, and I ask you not to make your decision depending upon the time the letter was written.
I believe that would be a great injustice in a decision, if letters, which were written before the date suggested by the Prosecution, would be admitted as documents, and letters written after this date would not be admitted as documents; that would be a one-sided favortism toward the Prosecution. In such a case it is natural that at a time when we were not thinking of a trial of jurists, the Defense could not think of letters, and the credibility of individual letters in the same way were as large or as small, regardless of what date they were written.
DR. KOESSL (for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Court, I believe that I can remember with certainty that for the admissibility of document NG-560, there was a special circumstance which, namely, that the Schneller letter was the result of a discussion with several camp inmates, and this community of work in the camp could not be reconstructed any more today, could not be recreated any more today. The thoughts expressed in the Schneller letter were the combined efforts of several persons. The letter was written in midst of the collapse after the war and confusion, and that the authors of the document were no longer accessible, and the author of the document NG-720 is easily accessible.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a moment, Dr. Grube, with reference to your argument. In what you suggest is that the probative value of a document or of a letter is not affected at all by the time in which it is written. The principle to which I was referring, which does make a distinction as to the time when instruments are prepared is based upon this idea: That when instruments are prepared for the purpose of introducing them into Court, there is much more danger that they will be suspected as being influenced by the desire to put them into evidence, whereas an instrument which is written perhaps in the course of business, before the writer knows that it is to be used as evidence, does have far greater probative value because it is not subject to such suspicion. And, that is the distinction I was suggesting, not making a ruling but sug gesting that very clear distinction.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Court, I merely wanted to refer to document NG-720. The gentlement of the Prosecution stated that this letter had been sent to the Prosecution without having been solicited. I believe the person who had written this letter to the Prosecution without being solicited, he, sir, wanted to fulfill some definite purpose with that in any case, and I believe for that very reason the suspicion which your Honor has just mentioned, that the document is somehow colored in the subjective way, and that it exists.
JUDGE BRAND: I was not attempting to imply a doubt when I suggested this case at all, I was merely pointing out the principle I had in mind.
MR. KING: Your Honor, one further word the Prosecution would like to say as to the time of the writing of this letter. It obviously could not have been written in contemplation of this proceeding, since at that time, the charter which set up the International Military Tribunal had not even been signed, let alone the basis for this particular current trial.
Do we understand that your Honor will defer further ruling on this until some future time?
THE PRESIDENT: That is the feeling of the Tribunal at this time.
In the meantime I personally would like to be advised as to whether this man Roomer is available for the administration of oath or for subpoena, to appear before this Tribunal?
MR. KING: Your Honor, we will attempt to determine that individuals present whereabouts.
JUDGE BRAND: To whom was this instrument addressed. My copy does not show an addressee?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: My recollection was that there was no addressee on the original.
THE PRESIDENT: You have overlooked the fact, not purposely of course, that Dr. Grube has objected on that ground, that there was no evidence that it was an individual signature; that it was a typewritten signature.
What do you know about that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I am afraid I am not able to answer your question. I did not present that document.
THE PRESIDENT: That should be looked into.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, we will look into it.
If the Bench and the Defense Counsel will please turn to document book 7-B.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Bench and defense counsel will please turn to Document Book 7B: On page 34 of the English Book, which is page 27 of the German, is found NG-741. This is a sworn affidavit executed by one Frau Gertrude Leppin. The affidavit is short, some two and one-half pages long, and confines itself to an eye witness description of a massacre in Sonnenburg Prison. The affiant's place of redidence was approximately two hundred yards from the penitentiary itself. The occurrance to which she refers was between 29 January 1945 and two or three days thereafter. According to the affiant's knowledge, information and personal observation, the prison officials, in the face of the Russian advance, ware ordered to exterminate all political prisoners in the prison. They were so ordered, but all of these officials in the prison, according to the affiant, refused to do it, but fled the town without carrying the order into effect. The next day the SS did the job. according to the affiant's estimate, having talked both to the Russian troops who freed the prison, and to the warden of the prison, she estimates that some 815 political prisoners were shot down. The prosecution wishes to call the attention of the Tribunal mainly to the statement on page 35: "He (meaning Herr Schenkwitz, the warden of the prison) added that the officials of the penitentiary have been ordered to shoot the political prisoners." The prosecution offers as Exhibit 293, Document NG-741.
THE PRESIDENT: You speak of political prisoners; that page 35 indicates that there were Russians among them. 2421
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It does, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You classify them as political prisoners - the Russians?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I was attempting to limit my remarks to the extent of the affidavit, and the affidavit does not define. It merely states Russian prisoners and political prisoners, both of which were in the prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Both classes were shot?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is what I gather, yes sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 37 of the English Book, which is page 30 of the German, is found what apparently is a diary. It was signed on the 28th of December 1942 by Westphal, an official in Division IV of the Ministry of Justice. On successive days from the 14th of December 1942 until the 22nd of the same month, Westphal describes a series of occurrences and visits in Ploetzensee Prison, attended by the defendant Mettgenberg, and other occurrences which were reported to the defendant Mettgengerg. For example, the first entry concerns preparations for mass hangings at Ploetzensee Prison, which is in Berlin. The next day Westphal notes that there was a visit made to Ploetzensee in connection with thim matter by the defendant Mettgenberg, among others; and then, Westphal describes in great detail the method of hanging sentenced prisoners by means of rope over hooks from which helpers held up the convicted person and dropped him. On the 21st of December the defendant Mettgenberg is noted to have issued the necessary directions for these mass hangings. And the last entry notes that the first hangings were carried out quickly and without incident.
On the next page, which is page 38 of the English, page 31 of the German, we find a further note initialed by Westphal, to the effect that questions of the defendant Mettgenberg to the official in charge of these executions did not elicit anything in particular.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 294, Document NG-320.
On page 39 of the----
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I beg your pardon, your Honor. Thank you.
On page 39 of the English Book, which is 32 in the German, is found NG-328. From the original it appears that this document is a typewritten memorandum to the files. However, the subject, "Execution by Hanging," is handwritten. The typed signature of Mettgenberg appears as the signer of this document, and it concerns certain executions to be held in Frankfurt for which the defendant mettgenberg is issuing the requisite directions as to the method, manner, and time. The prosecution offers as Exhibit 295, Document NG-328.
DR. SCHILF (for defendant Mettgenberg): Hay it please the Court: In regard to this document I would only like to point out the following. This is not to be regarded as an objection. I shall have to draw the conclusions from this later on. On the head of the Document there is a handwritten remark. This handwritten remark is as follows: "Subject, Execution by Hanging." The text which follows is written on a typewriter, and also likewise the name of Mettgenberg is written by typewriter, and that is twice, in different places.
That Mettgenberg did not sign these file notes himself is also apparent from the fact that in front of his name the usual remark sign appears. It is not apparent, one cannot see from the document, who made the copy, and who in handwriting wrote the words on the top of the document, "Subject, Execution by Hanging." If the document is to receive fall probative value, in my opinion the prosecution would have to affirm, or find-maintain or find out who made this handwritten remark, and who made out this copy, because it is a copy. It apparently comes from some one else's files.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, Dr. Schilf is quite right. It is exactly that -- an office copy; and how many office copies in the files are signed, at least by the writer.
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling that we have heretofore made concerning office copies certainly has application here, does it not Dr. Schilf?
There is no objection; no objection has been made, so I take it we will receive the document in evidence. Any arguments you have can be made later, of course.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 40 of the English Book, which is page 33 of the German, is found a letter addressed to the Ministerialrat Klemm, who is the defendant Klemm, at the main office of the Party, or Party Chancellory, and is dated 1 December 1942.
It appears, from an affidavit of the defendant Klemm already in evidence, that this was about a year before the defendant Klemm became Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice.
This letter is sent to Klemm by Minister Thierack, and bears the handwritten initials of Thierack. It concerns the carrying out of death sentences against certain marauders. It is concerned mainly with the method of executing those death sentences. In this letter Thierack reports to Klemm that the normal method of execution is the guillotine, one of which is located at every prison where executions are carried out. Thierack notes, however, that since the issue of the deeree against public enemies - this decree by the way, is found in Document Book II, at page 19 since the issue of that decree, only one case of deviation from the guillotining of defendants sentenced to death occurred. In that one deviation an executioner equipped with an ax and an executioner's block was brought to the necessary site in a motor car.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 296, document NG-324.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 42 of the English book, which is page 35 of the German, is found NG-4-5. This is a sworn affidavit by one Walter Strelow, formerly a director of Ploetzensce Prison in Berlin. while in that position, at various times between the period 1939-1945, he describes various experiments carried out in that prison against certain convicts under sentence of death who underwent experiments with poison gas.
Without reading this affidavit, but offering it in its entirety, I merely wish to invite the Court's attention to the conditions described by this former prison warden of the nature of proposition that was made to those convicts concerning their offering themselves for these experiments with poison gas. It will be noted that they would take convicts under sentence of death, tell than that their appeals for clemency had been refused and that their execution was imminent. They were then, and only then, offered a chance to regain freedom if they subjected themselves be experiments that would not necessarily result in their death. If they survived, they would be given freedom; but if they refused to undergo such experiments, they would have to be executed.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 297, document NG-405.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 45 of the English book, which is page 37 of the German, is found NG-330. This is a one-page memorandum bearing the stamp of the Ministry and dated 5 March 1943, addressed to the attorney General in Vienna. It is signed by Vollmer and initialed by Westphahl. In it Vollmer states, in his capacity as head of Division IV of the Ministry of Justice, that he does not consider it necessary to inform relatives of an executed person in each case of the fact of the execution of the death sentence.
In anticipation of a possible question from the Tribunal, the Prosecution regards this document as relevant because the two signatories to this document, namely Vollmer and Westphahl, were members of Division IV in the Ministry of Justice wherein the defendants Mettgenberg, Von Ammon, and, until 1943, the defendant Joel, also had positions.
The document, we feel, is illustrative of one facet of the work of that Division.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 298, document 330.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 46 of the English book, which is 38 in the German, is found NG-303. The first two pages of this document are completely handwritten and are signed , at least initialed, by the defendant Mettgenberg. It bears the handwritten letterhead of the Ministry of Justice, dated 19 July 1944 in Berlin. It is addressed to all chief public prosecutors and general public prosecutors, and is also circulated for the information of the President of the Supreme Court and of the People's Court and of the Courts of Appeal. It concerns itself very succinctly with the decision on the part of the defendant Mettgenberg that after the execution of a condemned person relatives are to be informed of the date thereof but only after tho execution has taken place, and that no death notices shall be published. Of more interest, however, is the fact that the letter goes on to say that no information at all of the fact of an execution of a condemned man is to be given to his relatives or to anybody else if he is not a German national.
This letter of Mettgenberg's is also initialed opposite the title as "Undersecretary" by the defendant Klemm.
The document continues with some typewritten memoranda initialed by Westphahl, in which the defendant Lautz had a discussion, apparently with the defendant Westphahl, concerning this problem of whether or not to inform the relatives of a man who is to be executed.
Lautz finally comes to the conclusion that in the case of German nationals relatives should only be informed afterwards, and then upon inquiry only.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 299, document NG-303.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the initials "I.A."?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: They mean "by order of".
THE PRESIDENT: The initials "E.I." on the next page - what is that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: To what page do you refer, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Page 47, "E.I. 6/7", whatever that is. Capital "E", small "i".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, I see that. It apparently -particularly since it bears the date -- is the initial of the person Eikler in the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I notice the letter "M" up on the top of the page to the right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That we have not been able to decipher.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 50 of the English book, which is page 43 of the German, is a lengthy directive issued by the Reich Ministry of Food and Agriculture to all district food offices in the Reich. It is signed, on page 57, which is page 52 in the German, by Dr. Moritz an official in the Food Ministry. It is a directive concerning literally how much the inmates of prisons, concentration camps, and police camps shall be fed. In a number of paragraphs it sets out the ration allotment for each category of prisoners.
Without reading this lengthy directive, but offering it in its entirety, I wish only to invite the Court's attention to the fact that there are distinctions made between various classes of prisoners, and there are very great differences between the amount of food that those various categories arc allowed. In particular, I invite the Court's attention to page 55 in the English book, which is page 50 in the German, wherein in Roman paragraph VII and Roman paragraph VIII, the feeding of Eastern workers and Poles and the feeding of Jews who are incarcerated in these various places of detention is distinctly separated.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 300 Document NG 455
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYRAM: On page 58 of the English book, which is page 53 in the German, is found MG 534. Although this document is a sworn affidavit in substance, its form is a little unusual. The form is directly traceable to the fact that this affidavit was secured pursuant to the interviewing of the affiant, Deacon Peter Buchholz In the interest of time, the entire transcript of the interview is reproduced here, and at the same time the person interrogated under oath swore to the contents thereof. The questions which are interpolated throughout this document are the words of the interviewer. The narative and affirmative statements are the words of the affiant, Deacon Buchholz.
The affiant, Deacon Buchholz, was prison chaplain at Pleotzensee prison in Berlin from May 1943 on until the end of the war. Without reading this entire affidavit, although we will offer it in its entirety, we particularly invite the Court's attention to page 59 of the English, which is Page 56 of the German, wherein Chaplain Buchholz describes the continual fettering, day and night of these sentenced to death by special order of the Minister of Justice there in the Ploetzensee. The chaplain also states that it was the Minister of Justice or the Ministry who gave orders to leave prisoners chained in their cells during airraids. When the affiant was asked who he knew in the Ministry of Justice who was directly concerned with these procedures, the affiant state that the only name he knew of was Engert, holder of the golden Party badge, who as we know from the defendant's own affidavit is the defendant Engert.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 301 Document NG 534.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: For purpose of the record, the Prosecution wishes at this time to refer back to Exhibit No. 376 and read a brief portion which has not been read before. This document is found in book 4-C at Page 14 of the English and Page 18 of the German.
It is the affidavit of the defendant Engert.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have that book.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You will not need it, Your Honor, it is very brief excerpt.
Beginning on Page 18 of the German.--In the division 5 of the Reich Ministry Justice, I as Ministry Director, had the supervision of all executions of sentences in the Germans prisons with the exeption of death sentences. The supervision of the execution of death sentences belonged to Division 4 of the Reich Ministry of Justice. My division was only concerned with the distribution of prisoners into the different prisons and the supervision and security of those prisons. My division was also responsible to insure that a guillotine or, after having introduced the hanging system, an arrangement for hanging, existed and was in good order in prisons which were arranged for the execution of death penalties. However the prison did not receive the orders for the execution by hanging or guillotine from me but from Division 4, which was directly connected with the concerned public prosecutor in the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number was that please?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Exhibit No. 276, the Engert affidavit.
JUDGE BLAIR: What page? What page in book 4 --Book 4-C?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 14, Your Honor. On page 68 of Book 7-B --I am sorry, I do not have that in the German, but it is the last document.
THE PRESIDENT: What page again please?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 68 in Book 7-B, the last document, is found NG 245. This document is the transcript of a speech -- correction, an article prepared by the Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, entitled "The Situation in Regard to the Execution of Sentences in 1944." This article prepared by Dr. Thierack is referred to Goebbels Ministry for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda by a covering letter in which the authorship of the article is made clear.
The covering letter states that the attached Thierack article is a comprehensive review of the execution of sentences throughout the Reich. We merely wish to invite the Court's attention, without reading the document to the fact that this Thierack articles includes a compilation of official Justice Ministry figures regarding the numbers of prison inmates in Reich prisons under Ministry control throughout the Reich, the nationalities of these prisoners, the fact that the bulk of them, whether of foreign extraction or whatever, were engaged in vital heavy armament work, and also figures on the executions of death sentences. The Prosecution offers as Exhibit 302 this Document NG 245.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR, WOOLEYHAN: At this point, if it please the Court, we depart from the seven series of document books which is new completed, except for the one document now under consideration that was discussed a short while ago. We take up now book 6.
THE PRESIDENT: You didn't offer NG 195, did you, on Page 61?
MR WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, that occurred previously. It is already in evidence, Your Honor, as Exhibit no 45, and was found in Document Book 1
THE PRESIDENT: The same Exhibit.
MR WOOLEYHAN: The same Exhibit.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: We are going now to present document book 6. The first document in this book, No 1733 PS, which appears on Pages 1 through 3, is the secret keitel directive of December 7 1941, for the prosecution of criminals acts.
THE PRESIDENT: Is so happens I do not have Book, 6
MISS ARBUTHNOT: It was distributed on Saturday morning. There should be -
THE PRESIDENT: It may be in my office, but I do, not have it here. I think we are now within two minutes of the time of our afternoon recess, so we can look it up in the meantime. What others books, if any, will you need besides that one?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: There is only one. There is a possibility that we may need book 5-a, but it is anticipated that Book 6 will take most of the afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: 7-A and 7-B were put on our desk this morning but not 6, and not 5-A. I haven't got it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It has been distributed, Your Honor, and after the recess I think -
THE PRESIDENT: We have 5-A, and we will find No. 6 during the recess. We will recess at this time (A recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MISS ARBUTHNOT: For the record it might be well to identify myself as Miss Arbuthnot of the Prosecution. The first document in Document book VI, 1733-PS, is the secret directive of December 7; 1941, for the prosecution of criminal acts against the Reich or the occupation power in occupied territories by citizens of these occupied territories. I should like to read this directive:
"Since the opening of the Russian Campaign, Communist elements and other anti-German circles have increased their assaults against the Reich and the occupation power in the occupied territories. The extent and the danger of these activities necessitate the most severe measures against the malefactors in order to intimidate them. To begin with one should proceed along according to the following directives.
I.
"In case of criminal acts committed by non-German civilians and which are directed against the Reich or the occupation power endangering their safety or striking power, the death penalty is applicable in principle.
II.
"Criminal acts contained in paragraph I will, in principle, be tried in the occupied territories only when it appears probably that death sentences are going to be passed against the offenders, or at least the main offenders, and if the trial and the execution of the death sentence can be carried out without delay. In other cases the offenders, or at least the main offenders, are to be taken to Germany.
III.
"Offenders who are being taken to Germany are subject to court martial procedure there only in case that particular military concerns should require this. German and foreign agencies will declare upon inquiries on such offenders that they were arrested and the state of the proceeding did not allow further informations.
IV.
"The Commanders-in-Chief in the occupied territories and the justiciaries, within their jurisdiction, will be personally held responsible for the execution of this decree.
V.
"The Chief of the OKW will decide in which of the occupied territories this decree shall be applied. He is authorized to furnish explanations, supplements, and to issue directives for its execution. The Reich Minister of Justice will issue directives for the execution within his jurisdiction."
"By order; signed by Keitel."
It might be well to explain that this order, in later documents, will be referred to as Nacht and Nebel Order, or the Night and Fog Order. Document No. 1733-PS is offered into evidence as Exhibit 303.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 303?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I only have 300; it is 303, you think?
MISS ARBUTHNOT: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidences
MISS ARBUTHNOT: The document appearing on pages 4 and 5, of both the English and German, Book VI, 671-PS, is a letter from Keitel to the Ministry of Justice, stating that close cooperation between the Ministry of Justice and the Wehrmacht is necessary in carrying out the Nacht and Nebel Order. This letter was brought to the attention of the defendant Schlegelberger and initialed by him. It will be seen from the letter that the Reich Ministry of Justice is to settle the manner of imprisonment of the Nacht and Nebel prisoners. Document No. 671-PS is offered as Exhibit 304.
DR. BEHLING: (Attorney for Defendant Schlegelberger) May it please the Court, in the photostat which I have before me does not confirm the drawing or initials by the defendant Schlegelberger which the Prosecution mentioned.
The letter with which the document is concerned is a letter from the Chief of the OKW to the Reich Minister of Justice for the attention of Under Secretary Freisler.